How does ratios of genders affect work in the workplace?

The following is a paper I wrote for my PUAD 520 Organizational Theory Class.

 

What It Takes To Get Along

            How a manager breaks his/her department into groups/teams can greatly affect the speed and quality of their work. You can have the same 25 people broken up 4 different ways, and you will get 4 variations of their finished product/service. They’re the same people, same work, same environment, the only thing that has changed is how they were organized. Now let’s move to a seemingly unrelated subject, then, tie the two together. The second concept is that the gender dynamics of companies and organizations are drastically changing. What is meant by that is that some sectors of the economy that have been traditionally male dominated are now less male dominated. At the same time, there are other sectors of the economy, such as construction, that has been traditionally male dominated and continues to be male dominated. The point is that every variation of the number of males and females working in every sector of the economy is different. This means from no change to a drastic change, and all in-between, this is what happening. It’s not all one thing or not all one another. So what is the tie between these two concepts? The tie is my main question that I seek to answer in this paper: Does the ratio of male to females in a group/team affect the quality and speed of their work?

            None of the sources solve the question directly. One assumes that no one has asked this question before, because the research and sources touch on the subjects related to the question, but that is the extent. One has to gather all of the conclusions from all of the sources together and then will see the answer, if there even is one. The first journal is “Think Crisis–Think Female: The Glass Cliff and Contextual Variation in the Think Manager–Think Male Stereotype” by Michelle Ryan, Alexander Haslam, Mette Hersby and Renata Bongiorno. The title can be confusing. It is asking that in a time of crisis for a company or organization, is it better to have female or male managers? The study and data showed that managers that showed typical male behavior and managerial traits were better in companies that were successful at the time they became managers. Conversely, managers that showed typical female behavior and managerial traits were better in companies that were not successful at the time they became managers.

            So what does this have to do with my question? It only answers part of the question. No study has asked my exact question; the chances of that happening are very rare for any psychological/behavioral question. The best we can do is piece together conclusions from different studies and come up with a general answer. So this study says that if your company/organization is doing bad, it is better to have female managers. However, what may seem like a proponent of female managing styles is actually something wrong. The “why” question is important. Why are female managers better than male managers in a company/organization that is doing bad? The study found that the answer is “Because it is easier to blame them for the company/organization’s failure.” So the only reason why they are considered better is to be scapegoats. That really doesn’t do anything for women’s rights in the workforce, and definitely doesn’t answer my question.    

            Another problem with this study is that it fails to define what “typical female manager behavior” and “typical male manager behavior” is. It’s open to the reader’s interpretation. What you might think typical behavior is may be totally different than what I think is typical. And even if there is a general agreed upon consensus in a society, I may disagree with the consensus. The fact that I’ve seen men act in every possible manner regarding management leads me to believe that there is no typical male manager behavior, only out-dated stereotypes. Likewise, I’ve seen women act in every possible manner regarding management. That leads me to believe that there is not typical female manager behavior, only what society thinks they are based on archaic cultural bias.   

            The second study is called “Challenging Conventional Wisdom About Who Quits: Revelations From Corporate America” by Peter Hom, Loriann Roberson, and Aimee Ellis. This study found that women quit their jobs/switch jobs more often than men. This is across all other demographical characteristics, such as a race, class, or religion. Why do they do so? There is no one answer; there is a whole bunch of reasons. But most of them do it only a year on the job. We can infer that means that they had wrong expectations about the job, found out it was something different then they thought it would be, and they went on to find something else.

            Unfortunately, this tells us even less about our question than the first study does. As the concept of all these women entering all of these workforces is relatively new in comparison to all of human history that we’ve been working, there are very little answers to be found. It’s not an issue that we have been studying for centuries. The only tie in that I can find is that, as a manager, you may think twice about hiring a lot of women to positions that are critical to your company/organization. Why? Because they quit more often soon after you hire them.

            But do the studies actually justify thinking that way as a manager? People could see that as a sexist attitude towards hiring, even if there is data to back it up. So unfortunately, the findings are too limited to actually base a policy or mindset towards it, in my opinion. As always in Public Administration, there is more research that needs to be done.

            Peter Blau had hypothesizes on macrosocial theories, which this issue falls under. He published his findings in an article called “A Macrosociological Theory of Social Structure.” Amongst his various conclusions is one that is pertinent to my question. He found that social groups had less interaction with other social groups that were radically different than they were. So, Protestants and Catholics had a lot of interaction. Their religious differences are slight, and they share many demographical characteristics in common such as race, income, etc. Overall, Blacks and Jews did not have a lot of interaction because things like their religion and income were often very different.        

            So what does this mean for our question? More interaction between people usually means they get along more. People don’t interact with other people that they hate unless they have to. So it’s logical to assume that a lot of voluntary interaction means that person A and person B like each other. This means that woman A in a company will, more likely than not, work well with woman B if some of their other factors, like religion, lifestyle, personal networks, etc, are similar. Their gender has little or nothing to do with it. This study is suggesting that the ratio of men and women doesn’t mean a lot when it comes to performance, because it is only one of many factors that play into how well people work together and their performance levels.

            This runs in line with what we learned in class about diversity. Skin deep aspects, such as gender, race, etc, are less important than deeper aspects of a person. That’s where true diversity lies. So if you want your workers to work well together, don’t focus on the ratio of men and women. Get a group of like-minded people who have some things in common and they’ll most likely work great together.  

            Rosabeth Kanter did research pertaining to my exact question, in her article “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” In short, she studied groups of workers with different ratios of men and women: sometimes it was 9/1 male to female, 7/3 male to female, or 5/5 male to female ratios. After she observed them working for a while, she found that in the groups with the fewest amount of women, the 9/1 ratio group, the women were mostly excluded socially from the men. Their input wasn’t taken into consideration, the men just cared about their looks, they had to work twice as hard for the same amount of credit, etc, all negative consequences of the 9/1 ratio. The “logic” behind the men’s behavior, that Kanter goes on to explain, is that since the women were such a small minority in the company that the men did not need them as allies to get their work done, so they didn’t even try to be nice to them. In ratios like 7/3 or 5/5, women consisted enough of the company that they were needed quite often to get any work done, so men included them in projects, valued their input, treated them like the normal human beings that they are, credited their work duly, etc, all opposite of when the ratio was 9/1.

            Kanter’s explanations seem to say that if, the roles were reverse, and women had the majority in the company, that they would do the same thing to men. Neither gender is more “mean” or self-centered than the other; what only matters is the ratio between men and women. This makes sense because in companies that I’ve worked for where there are very few males or my age is significantly higher or lower than the medium age of most of the other employees, my input was not taken, my achievements weren’t taken as seriously, etc. You can substitute gender for age, race, religion, etc, any identifiable trait a person can have can potentially be inserted into this ratio explanation that Kanter figured out through her studies.

            This data paints a dismal picture of human behavior. It suggests that people are only nice to other people when they see something that they can gain from that friendship. So, the men aren’t nice and fair to the women because they possess good human qualities, they’re only doing that because they see some benefit for themselves. I can’t think of any other explanation because between all the groups, the only thing that changed was the ratio between men and women.

            Kanter has some suggestions for managers who want to minimize this problem potentially happening in their office/organization. The first one is to have a “sponsor.” A sponsor is a person who represents the majority group. The sponsor maintains dialogue to the minority group and works out any problems that the minority group has in working. I would suggest having a higher requirements in the ethics of the people you hire. It’s despicable that people will turn on one another simply because of a numbers game. I treat people with respect, value their work and input no matter how many people of the same gender work in my company. It’s not that hard, and not too much to expect from your employees. I wouldn’t care how good of an employee you were, if you started being unfair towards a person just because of their gender/race, etc, then I wouldn’t want you to work for me.

            A solution that seems obvious but actually doesn’t work is to simply hire more of the minority group so that their proportion is better, so the majority group will treat them nicer. The reason why that doesn’t work even though it does solve the proportion problem is explained in Gillian Ranson’s “Gender, Earnings, And Proportions of Women.” Her study is about organizations that sought out to hire more women, for diversity purposes. However, she found that the companies hired less educated and less experienced women, compared to their male co-workers, in order to meet these diversity purposes.

            This is problematic for several reasons. One, it means, in the name of diversity, companies hired less educated and less experienced people on purpose, passing up a person who would be a better employee. This means the quality and speed of the company’s work will diminish. This is the case against hiring for skin level diversity, a.k.a. race, gender, age, etc. A better hiring practice, for example, would be to hire people based on their diversity of outlooks on life, which would lead to different ways of thinking to solve problems. Diversity under the skin, such as emotions, personal networks, attitudes on life, etc, we learned in class, is what matter more than skin level diversity. This claim has been backed up by the studies we read in class pertaining to diversity.

            Secondly, hiring less competent females to these positions will only reinforce the male bias in the workers that are already there. They’ll think “Geez, every woman they’ve hired in this department doesn’t know how to do her job well.” This will reinforce their belief that woman don’t know how to do this particular job, because he’ll point to the facts to back up his claim. A better practice would to only hire competent females, to disprove their bias. A man might think a woman can’t possibly know how to do his job, but once a woman is hired in his office and does a good job, that will break and disprove his mental bias.

            An article published by several authors, titled “Exploring the Asymmetrical Effects of Gender Tokenism on Supervisor–Subordinate Relationships,” explores further into the concept of how “token” people work in an office. Token meaning you are the only one of a certain category, either your race, gender, religion, etc. The authors conducted surveys on a number of people. They found that when women were proportionally underrepresented, they reported feeling less supported by female supervisors than male supervisors. This seems to run contrary to normal human behavior, as one would think that since women were fewer in number than men in these organizations, that the women would look out for each other more. But the opposite happens. Maybe that’s because humans are rarely ever rational. Maybe it’s because the female supervisors were so busy looking after themselves, trying to survive as a minority, that they honestly didn’t have time to properly support the female workers. As with much of human behavior, unless we asked every single female manager in the study specifically why they didn’t do xyz, we simply won’t know the reason why.

            Being a token seemed to hurt women more in other ways as well. The article continues with a second study, and found that showed that women who perceived they were gender tokens in their organization were less likely to support an outstanding female subordinate than an identical male. Again, another instance of a perceived minority shooting themselves in the foot. The study showed no reason as to why this has to be a female only problem; then one would logically assume that if men were the minority in an organization, then they would do the same thing too, unfortunately.    

            Amanda Koch, Susan D. Mello, and Paul Sackett talked about gender bias in what is to be considered “male dominated jobs” and “female dominated jobs.” Their study was titled “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision Making.” In English, that meant they looked at who had more “bias”: females in majority male job positions or males in majority female job positions. They found that the latter had more bias than the former.

            But what do they mean by bias? Unfortunately, the authors were not clear on that, and that is a major problem with this study. “Bias” is a non-tangible concept that is abstract and is not quantifiable. Therefore, it up to the opinion of what the authors think is a bias, based off of, their words,: “the effects of decision-maker gender, amount and content of information available to the decision maker, type of evaluation, and motivation to make careful decisions on gender bias in organizational decision.” That means gibberish to the average person, so when the average person doesn’t understand your terms, it is easy to manipulate findings to suit what you want those findings to say.

            What does this mean for the average manager? Let’s say the authors were right. That means you, as a manager, have to be extra careful and be on the lookout for these bias if you run an organization/department that is majority female, and then, you hire some males to come and work there. That, the authors say, is the instance where there is the most potential for gender bias that negatively affects everyone. You have to be vigilant to snuff it out before it causes a real loss in productivity or some other negative aspect is affecting your department/organization.

            In the article titled “Who Gives? Multilevel Effects of Gender and Ethnicity on Workplace Charitable Giving,” authors Lisa Leslie, Mark Snyder, and Theresa Ghomb look at the effects that gender have on how much a worker donates to “work related charity.” They talk about ethnicity too, but that is not related to the topic, so we’ll just focus on the findings related to gender. They find that women usually give more than men. That means that if you’re a manager and you want workplace charity to increase, then you’ll hire more woman.

            A rather interesting study was done about apologizing in the workplace. This may seem trivial at first glance, but apologizing has a great influence on how well people can work together, i.e. productivity. In “Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace,” the study finds that an

apology is most effective when the apologizer is a male, a manager, or is a male apologizing to a female.

            So do any of the findings from these studies have any specific actions that a manager can take to make sure his/her workers get along? Technically, yes they do, but the problem is, which ones do you pay attention to and which ones do you ignore? If you pay attention to all of the findings, it’ll be impossible because they clash with each other. One study tells you to not have tokens, because that will cause problems. But then you also can’t just hire people based on their race/gender/religion, etc, to avoid tokens, because then you might get incompetent employees. And it goes on and on like this. All of the studies looked just as valid as the others. How could you choose which ones to follow and which ones not to?

            My takeaway from all of these studies are that the findings are interesting, and should be kept in the back of one’s mind as a manager to help and avoid conflicts in the workplace. But none of them are definite enough to shape behavior. There are so many other factors at work at all aspects of work. That is the problem I have with organization theory, and social science on the whole. What findings people find rarely can translate into actual actionable steps in the real world because the real world has too many other factors to consider when making managerial decisions. To hire or not hire someone because their gender is better/not better at apologizing to managers is bizarre and will get you laughed at by any co-worker that you tell. That’s because you’re taking one factor and putting it above all other factors when making a hiring decision. So to answer the original question: “Does the ratio of male to females in a group/team affect the quality and speed of their work?” the answer is: Yes, it does, but none of the studies show what ratio will eliminate all potential problems.

            A better hiring practice would be to have the employees conducting the interviews be a very good judge of character. You want employees who honestly want to do a good job, are flexible, tolerant, not bigots, respectful, don’t freak out at little things, etc. These may seem like no brainers, but yet so many companies have employees who are none of the above. That is because the hiring interviewer was not a good enough judge of character in the interview. They thought the candidate had these certain qualities, but they didn’t. I would much rather work with a person who has these qualities, no matter their race, religion, gender, etc. Like previously mentioned, these qualities in a person would make them respectful and thoughtful to another employee who is a token in the organization. There, you just solved the “token problem” that the studies talked about, without having to follow all of these complicated suggestions from the findings of the studied. You just hired good people, and the rest just followed naturally.

Sources

            Blau, Peter. “A Macrosociological Theory of Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 83, No. 1 (Jul., 1977), pp. 26-54.

            Hom, Peter. “Challenging Conventional Wisdom About Who Quits: Revelations From

Corporate America.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008, Vol. 93, No. 1, 1–34.

            Kanter, Rosabeth. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 82, No. 5 (Mar., 1977), pp. 965-990Published

            Koch, Amanda. “A Meta-Analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in

Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision Making.” Online First Publication, May 26, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036734

            Leslie, Lisa. “Who Gives? Multilevel Effects of Gender and Ethnicity on Workplace

Charitable Giving.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 2013, Vol. 98, No. 1, 49–62.

            Ranson, Gillian. “Gender, Earnings, and Proportions of Women: Lessons from a High-Tech Occupation.” Gender and Society. Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 168-184.

            Ryan, Katherine. “Exploring the Asymmetrical Effects of Gender Tokenism

on Supervisor–Subordinate Relationships.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012, 42, S1, pp. E56–E102. 

            Ryan, Michelle. “Think Crisis–Think Female: The Glass Cliff and Contextual Variation in the Think Manager–Think Male Stereotype.”  Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011, Vol. 96, No. 3, 470–484.

            Walfisch, Tamar. “Do You Really Expect Me To Apologize? The Impact of Status and Gender on the Effectiveness of an Apology in the Workplace.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Volume 43, Issue 7, pages 1446–1458, July 2013. 

                         

Palestine's Resistance shows adaptability

     The everlasting war between Palestine and Israel reached a high point during the summer, then it simmered back down for several months. It's hit a small spike the last couple of weeks, with several deaths in Jerusalem and the West Bank, where violence has been considerably lower than in Gaza in the last decade.

     I've noticed a trend over this year in the way Palestinians are fighting their cruel occupiers. Whenever Israel finds a way to negate the way they fight, they simply adapt and maneuver. They find a new way to fight back, ways that are creative and totally unrelated to the way they previously thought, so the Israelis have a harder time predicating how to combat the resistance. They think outside the box. 

     The first way the Palestinians fought this year was with rockets. They did this because this was one of the few long range weapons they have. Unlike the Israelis, they do not have artillery and jet fighters to kill their enemies from miles away. They have whatever small arms they can smuggle into Gaza or whatever they can make at home. These rockets were not particularly effective, as they are impossible to aim at the distances the Palestinians had to fire them at, but, at least they were a weapon. 

    The Israelis found a way to counter these rockets and bring down causalities from them almost 99%. Basically they hardly killed anyone with rockets during the 2014 summer war. The Israeli Iron Dome shot down the rockets before they could hit their targets. 

     But the Palestinians adapted. They switched from shooting rockets to doing raids from tunnels. They would dig under Gaza, through the border, and up into Israel, where they would launch sneak attacks against Israeli military targets. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, Hamas did not use a single tunnel to launch attacks against Israeli civilians, they only targeted military units. This is contrasted with Israel, whose killings were 75%-90% civilians. Hamas killed 66 Israeli soldiers during the war, and a big chunk of those deaths were from tunnel raids. The other deaths came from classic guerrilla warfare operations in Gaza as Israeli ground troops rolled in.  

     These tunnels caught the Israelis by surprise. They didn't anticipate that Hamas had built as many tunnels as they did. They couldn't negate them with their superior airpower. Jet fighters can do nothing against tunnels that are as deep as the Hamas tunnels were. So, they had to send in ground troops and bulldozers into Gaza to destroy the tunnels. This is how Israel negated the tunnel method of fighting. Although this cost them some ground troops, Israel succeeded in destroying the Hamas tunnels.  

     By the fall of 2014, after the war had ended, the Palestinians had to come up with a new way to fight. They are not allowed to possess firearms in the West Bank, apparently, Palestinians are not humans, therefore, they are not supposed to enjoy the universal human right of self defense. Jews, however, are allowed to own any firearm that they want. So, Palestinians find an ingenious way to fight with what they've got: cars.
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11211675/Israel-on-brink-of-third-intifada-after-new-car-attack.html

      It's an interesting tactic, something that you could never predict judging by their past tactic, which was tunnels. The two bear no resemblance. And unlike guns, Israel cannot ban Palestinians from driving cars, otherwise, they'd be just like Saudi Arabia in that regard, who bans women from driving. It's politically and economically not viable, which makes it a good tactic.
     Same thing with this last tactic that Palestinians are using at the same time as the cars: knives. Yep, regular pocket and kitchen knives. Nothing super high tech here. But Israel can't do anything about it before an attack happens. You can't ban knives.
     It will be interesting to see if this resistance fizzes out and dies down like many other times, or if it will actually culminate into another Intifada. It's simply too early to tell. Anyone who tells you it's a third Intifada doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. But there is one guarantee: Palestinian resistance will never die. You cannot kill an idea, and you cannot take away peoples' basic human rights and them just sit there and not do anything about it.  
 

     

     

  

Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis for U.S. Senate

      In the race for the Senate seat of Virginia, there is a 3 way battle going on right now. Despite what the media may have told you, there are three men running for the seat. What, the media told you there was only two? Figures, that's a common tactic used by the mainstream media, since they are bought for and the mouthpieces of the two corrupt and long overdue political parties. They ignore 3rd party candidates and therefore, people who only listen to the mainstream media, and nothing else, do not hear about the 3rd party candidates.
     Anyway, back on topic. We have Robert Sarvis of the Libertarian party, Mark Warner of the Democratic party, and Ed Gillespie of the Republican party. The later two will continue to destroy America bit by bit. If you think I'm exaggerating by saying the word "destroy," just look at our country, and tell me it isn't an exaggeration. We are trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt, we are like a crazed psychopath with an unlimited credit card. Our image and strength abroad is the laughing stock of the world. We are the target of attacks because we cannot stop killing people overseas. Our economy is still in shambles, thanks to the crony capitalists and the 1% completely destroying the middle and lower classes of America to gobble up more wealth for themselves. The "War on Drugs" is wrecking havoc through communities around the country, the NSA knows every single thing we do on the internet and the vast majority of Americans don't care, undocumented immigrants pour into this country by the millions, a generation of young adults have no future because of the recession, I mean, if that isn't destruction, then what the fuck is?!
     Warner and Gillespie support all of this destruction. Their parties support and orchestrate all of it, they thrive off it. The 1% has never been better off than they are now. So that's why I'm voting for Sarvis, because he and other libertarians seek to end of all this.
     Here, I'll go by an issue by issue basis, stating Warner's or Gillespie's opinion on the issue, and then Sarvis's, and explain why I like Sarvis's opinion better than the formers.  

     1. The national debt and budget crisis.
     Mark Warner has no problem not balancing the budget, just borrow more money, that's his solution. That, and raise taxes. Because us pesky lower class workers aren't paying enough in taxes, apparently! "Warner told CNN in 2011 that he is convinced that when it comes to managing federal finances, long-term bipartisan planning is a superior way to lowering debt than a balanced budget amendment."
      http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/jun/30/mark-warner/warner-has-changed-position-balanced-budget-amendm/
     Mark Warner has voted with President Obama a whooping 97% of the time. Nothing says lap dog like doing everything your master tells you to. And we all know how much Obama's economic policies have totally wrecked this nation's economy: He's increased the deficit by at least 57%, and he's borrowed 60 TRILLION DOLLARS since taking office.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/
    Warner had a hand in all that....97% of it, to be exact. He thinks going trillions of dollars in debt is perfectly okay. He never stops to think "Hmmmm, maybe we'd better take a look at all of these wealth transferring policies and see if all of them are Constitutional." Damn the Constitution, Warner and his fascist pigs have money to steal!!    
     Conservatives routinely tout that they do not spend a lot and can balance a budget. Apparently they haven't looked at the debt since 2001. Despite stereotypes that Democrats borrow and go into debt and conservatives spend less and balance the budget, the fact is, they're dead wrong. Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, and we all know how well that group of brain dead retards did. Bush increased the deficit by 38%.
     Sarvis won't do what either man did. Straight from his website:

     Let's face it: Neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither Ed Gillespie nor Mark Warner, has any credibility when it comes to protecting taxpayers' money and shepherding scarce resources. Both parties have enacted new, expensive entitlements. Both parties have increased discretionary spending. Both parties have supported wars of choice.

      I pledge to make debt-reduction and balanced budgets a priority. I support simplifying the tax code, reforming entitlements, and cutting bloated budgets—including military spending. And I support a balanced budget amendment and protections against accounting gimmicks.

I’m also the only candidate who supports expanding and protecting both economic and personal freedom—and I understand how they are linked. For instance, our failed War on Drugs contributes to the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world. That’s not only unjust, it's expensive and perpetuates poverty. By unleashing freedom, we will expand economic growth and opportunity, and in turn, reduce the burden on the safety net.

     http://www.robertsarvis.com/debt-spending-and-balanced-budgets

     Sarvis would run the national debt like a person who runs the money of a household. When you have $200 to spend for the week, do you say "Hmmmm, now how to make that $200 last so I don't go over?" or do you say, like a dumbass maniac "Oh I'll just spend all of that and when I need to buy more I'll just put it all on my credit card and after that I'll just get a loan from the bank, etc." 

     A fiscally responsible manages his finances within his budget; a Republican or Democrat says "To hell with my budget, I wanna spend this much, so let's borrow this much right now!"

     2. Civil Liberties.
     Mark Warner and Gillespie see us as cattle, as fodder to grow their sadistic fascist empire. They do not give a flaming fuck about any one of your human rights. If breaking your human rights meaning getting more money or power for them, then they will not think twice about fucking breaking it.

• Ed Gillespie has worked for the Republican party for decades, a party that has persecuted Muslims both here and abroad. He will surely believe he believes in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights when it comes to protecting religion...unless your Muslim. Then to hell with your religion, we're Amurca here! Just type "The Republican party and Islam" and you'll get all the examples you need of how this party persecutes Muslims. Hell, see how the Bush Administration dealt with Muslims here in America after 9/11. 
• Both do not support your freedom of speech. Both Warner and Gillespie support the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the NSA surveillance, etc. If you say anything against them, then you're automatically and without question a terrorist. If they saw this blog, they'd call me a terrorist supporter, even though they're the ones who are supporting terrorism, (we'll get to that in second). So that's the 4th Amendment out the fucking window!
•  Bush created Guantanamo Bay, and Gillespie was part of that administration. Obama loves Guantanamo, keeping it open even though 6 years ago he said he would get rid of it, (when's he going to get that?). Mark Warner has no problem with Guantanamo Bay, after all, he votes with Obama basically all the time, and has been a part of the Democratic party, which has kept the Bay open for years when they could've gotten rid of it. So, both Warner and Gillespie have no problem getting rid of the 5th Amendment if it's in the name of "national security." Oh, and the 6th Amendment as well, that comes under the rights broken by both parties with the creation of Guantanamo and the mass arrests right after 9/11, in which people were kidnapped from their homes in the dead of night, held without charges or access to lawyers. Does everyone just fucking forget about that and act like it didn't fucking happen?!   
• Both parties support asset forfeiture. This is a law that originally was designed to halt drug operations, but now, as usual, the cops abuse this law and use it to legally steal money from people. That's right, if they find you with a large amount of cash, (large amount is subjective of course), then they can say "Oh it's drug money," and without any evidence or a trial, steal your cash. Then, they use it to buy nice and pretty things for their police department. Most people can't get their money back even through a trial, and even then, a trial takes months and months, and all the while, you don't have your money that you legally worked for and paid taxes on. Fucking bullshit.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/09/11/how-cops-got-a-license-to-steal-your-money/ Using cash to pay your landlord because you don't have checks? Better not get pulled over while going from the bank to home, otherwise, you might get robbed  by the boys in blue. Gonna use cash to buy an expensive item and you don't want to use a credit card because of all the identity theft recently? Better not get pulled over coming from Best Buy or Home Depot to home. Sarvis wants to end this fascist and highway robbery rule. He stands up for human rights, saying "No, I don't care who you are. If you don't have evidence that this money is drug money, then you cannot steal it. Every person has the right of personal property, and no one, not even the police, can steal it."  

    3. Foreign Affairs
    This is where libertarianism really shines in comparison to neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Conservatives and liberals are basically identical when it comes to foreign policy, identically fucking retarded. Just take a quick look around the world and you'll see the oppression and destruction wrought by our foreign policy over the decades.

• Mark Warner and Ed Gillespie want the "War on Drugs" to continue. We'll talk about the domestic issues of this "War" in a little bit, but right now, we'll talk about how it affects our foreign policy, more specifically, Mexico, and South American countries, (Yes, Mexico is in NORTH America). Warner, Gillespie, and the whole Democratic and Republican party want to keep giving millions of dollars to the Mexican military and government. People conveniently forget that the Mexican government and military is a fascist machine that oppresses and kills their own citizens. Look at any number of these human rights reports and tell me: Is this where you want your tax money going to?!

          http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/mexico

          http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220667.pdf

          http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/mexico

          http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/LACRegion/Pages/MXIndex.aspx

         Many people refrain from criticizing the Mexican government and military, because "the drug cartels are worse so we gotta support them," or because they don't want to be seen as racist. I say fuck all that shit. Race has nothing to do with it. The Mexican government and military are oppressive regimes that are not in line with American values. They do not deserve our hard earned tax dollars, not because of their race, but because of the specific terroristic and fascist actions their military and government have taken. They take away Mexicans' freedom of speech. They torture innocent people charged with no crime. They do not give them trials. They deny their citizens a way to defend themselves; with only one legal gunstore in all of Mexico, many Mexicans are forced to buy guns illegally to defend their friends and family from cartel thugs and corrupt Mexican "security forces." 

       Not only that, but there are many American "advisers" that actively help Mexican security forces carry out raids and tortures. Now, do you like the fact that armed American men paid by the government are helping a terrorist regime kill and oppress their own citizens? Warner and Gillespie love that. They feed off the blood and suffering of innocent Mexican citizens. They are crazed beasts who's bloodlust is never satisfied. Tens of thousands of Mexicans have died over the decades, and what do Warner and Gillespie say? More guns! More advisors! More repression! Less rights!

      Sarvis is completely opposite of this demonic mindset. He opposes giving military aid to any country, for if no military aid was given, then there is no chance of it being misused for terrorist activities. He opposes military aid, regardless of the race or religion of the country in question. So that means no weapons, ammo, and training for Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, etc, all of these countries who oppress either their own people or another people with U.S. made weapons.
      Not only that, but libertarianism refuses to trade or do business with terrorist governments. Trade and business is taxable, and we cannot allow taxes from our trade and business to be used to oppress and kill innocent people. On principle, that is what we must do. We cannot continue to have innocent blood on our hands just so we can make a quick buck. So, that means no more trade with China, Russia, India, etc, all of those corrupt fascist and/or communist regimes.

      But if we do that, opponents of libertarianism would say, then we would not be able to buy all those cheap goods from these countries, especially China. Good, bring these jobs here back to America, who has plenty of people unemployed or underemployed who would love to work any one of those millions of jobs that would be brought back here. Opponents of this idea would say that the price of these goods would go up, because we cannot make them as cheap as China can. Well in that case, if morales are not involved in the decision process, if we are only going by the price it takes to produce something, then let's reintroduce slave labor in the U.S. to make those goods as cheap as they are made in China. Now you see how stupid it sounds. You support slave labor overseas to make your cheap ass stuff, but then as soon as someone suggests that Americans do the same, then suddenly that's off limits.
     Fact: sometimes you pay a monetary price to stand by your morales. We do that every day by saying no to slave labor, even though slave labor is cheaper than paying a worker to make something. The same must apply to this case: We will pay more for goods in order to stand by the moral of not giving money to terrorist regimes so they can oppress and kill their citizens. Americans are innovative. We will find a way to make those goods in a cheap enough fashion that other Americans can buy them.
     Another plus of libertarian foreign policy is that we only fight if we are being attacked by another country. No more making up data and lies to invade other countries for their natural resources, (Iraq and Afghanistan). No more fighting to keep tyrants and corrupt governments in power, (Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, etc). No more creating enemies so then we have an excuse to fight them (Al-Qaida, ISIS, etc). We have this novel idea that people don't like being bombed for no reason. WHO WOULD'VE FUCKING THOUGHT OF THAT, RIGHT?!

     4. War on Drugs
     So here is where we can talk about the devastating effects the War on Drugs has at home. Warner and Gillespie love the War on Drugs. They want it to be waged forever. They love locking people up for doing actions that affect no one but themselves. Warner and Gillespie have the mindset of "Hey, since I think drug xyz is immoral to use, I'm going to force EVERYONE to think this way by making it illegal!" or "Hey the Constitution says nothing about this drug xyz being illegal. Well fuck the Constitution, fuck Americans' rights, since I think it should illegal, then it is going to be illegal!"

     Both parties want to continue to throw huge amounts of money at this "problem" and it not be solved, ($51 BILLION A YEAR, on average, to be exact). Both of them want to continue to arrest Americans, so many that we have the highest concentration rate of citizens in prison IN THE WORLD. They want to continue to make drugs illegal, even though, if they were legal and taxable, would bring in $46.7 BILLION in revenue annually.
     http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
     Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why the hell do you think it would work for any other drug? Why do you think you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own body? It's not your fucking body!
      Sarvis says "Hey, unless an action is infringing on someone else's human rights, then I don't have a problem with it. It shouldn't be illegal. Things should only be illegal if they break someone else's human rights. Does someone smoking pot have any effect on me? No, so I have no right to tell him/her not to do it." I know, it's so simple that it ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.      

     Republicans usually have a "holier than thou" complex, especially when it comes to drugs. They think they are doing God's work by prohibiting these drugs from being legal. 1st of all: fuck your religion. This country was founded on the principle that people cannot force their religious beliefs onto other people. So if you think smoking weed violates your religion, fine, that's your interpretation of the Bible. But don't go around thinking that is the only possible interpretation and forcing everyone else to abide by your personal beliefs.
     Democrats have a similar attitude, but without the religious overtones. They think they are so damn smart that they know what's best for you, better than you do. They want to be in control of your personal decisions, not you.

     5. Economics
     Bush tanked the economy, and Obama is continuing to hold it down in the mud. There, that should be reason enough not to vote for either party on the principle of economics, because both parties have shown that they are not able to manage the national economy. They only look out for the 1%, their bloc of power, and fuck everyone else.  Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, the one that, you know, ruined the lives of millions of people throughout the world, but especially Americans with its disastrous economic plans. And Warner votes with Obama 97% of the time. So he's signed off on basically every single economic policy that is continuing the recession, keeping the middle and lower classes down, keeping the underemployment high, etc, etc.  

      Does the above picture make your blood boil? Do you understand the full implications of what it is saying? Bank of America foreclosed, it failed, as a business, it tanked. Done. Finished. But Bush couldn't allow that to happen. So he bailed them out on the taxpayer's dime. So the bank still exists. Even though it failed, even though it's own decisions and policies caused its failure, Bush cheated and gave it another life. It's like a student getting an F on a test because he's a dumbass and didn't study, but the teacher feels bad for him and gives him an A anyway.
    But wait, it gets better. After being resurrected by the sweat of ordinary workers like you and me, Bank of America went through tax loopholes, intentionally ignored by the Bush and Obama administrations, and paid ZERO taxes on the $4.4 billion in profits. The administrations ignore these loopholes, because it is their cronies and supporters who exploit the loophole to pay no taxes. Year after year they leave the loopholes intact. See, if you or I tried to do that, we would be arrested for tax fraud. But if you're a member of this exclusive club, created by Obama, then you don't have to pay any taxes at all. Some capitalism. Some democracy.
     How is this remotely fair? I am dirt poor, yet I still pay about 25% of my salary to taxes every year, if you combine all state, federal, and income taxes together. Yet Bank of America, who made a billion times more money than I ever will, did not pay a single penny on their profits.  
     Warner and Gillespie favor bailouts for failing companies. Where's the taxpayers' bailout? Sarvis, on the other hand, does not support intervention in the economy. He has a Master's in Economics from George Mason University, so I think he knows what the fuck he is talking about. If a company fails in the economy, then that gives an opportunity for another company to take that niche and offer a better service/product in its place. This is how a economy is supposed to work. It's like if the government kept on propping up the carriage companies when car companies were rising in the 20's. We wouldn't have cars because the government wouldn't allow the carriage companies to naturally go out of business and make room for the new company of transportation. If Bank of America failed, then a new bank would rise and take its place, only it would learn from Bank of America's mistakes, hence, be a better bank. They would offer better services at better prices. This artificial propping up of archaic/inefficient companies is only hurting the economy in the long run. Bank of America knows it doesn't have to do good in the economy, because if it fails, the government will just bail it out again. There is not incentive to provide a good service at a good price.

     6. Secure the border.
     Both major parties are not seriously guarding our southern border. That is why we have 13 million plus illegal immigrants in this country. It also means that criminals, gang members, and terrorists can cross our southern border with ease, and cause havoc in our nation. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants commit murder in this country. And terrorists have been caught trying to enter the U.S. through the unguarded southern border: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/07/Report-10-ISIS-Fighters-Arrested-Crossing-Southern-Border
     Each party has its own reason to not put more troops at the southern border. They do not care about the welfare or safety of Americans. Democrats keep it open because they have this totally fucked up notion that keeping illegal immigrants out of this country is somehow racist against Hispanics. Well, then that means every country in the world is racist towards Hispanics, including Hispanic countries, because every single country in the world, including every single Hispanic nation, has immigration laws and procedures. Not one single country has completely open borders, because its national suicide. Its completely logical and rational to have procedures about who and when someone can enter your country. But nope, Democrats are paranoid about even possibly being considered racist, so they leave the border open for anyone, including rapists and murderers, to enter our country without anyone knowing. Apparently, not letting people break international law with impunity is racist. Who would've thought. Democrats also don't want the border guarded because the illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat in elections. Coupled with the Democratic campaign of not having to show an I.D. to vote, this idea is a goldmine to get illegal votes in elections for Democrats.
     Republicans purposely leave the border open so they can bash Democrats for it, using the reasons I just listed above. Libertarians however, realize the rationally and logical benefits of not having a completely open and monitored border. So they advocate for a faster legal immigration process while advocating for a tighter guarded border. For how to more tightly guard the southern border, read my past post The immigration reform that we actually need:  http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-immigration-reform-that-we-actually.html
      If any of this seems extreme, that's because it is. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The two main political parties have allowed this situation to become desperate and extreme on purpose, so that when people like me call for the only real solution to the problem, they can whine "Oh you're a dangerous radical, your idea is racist and would never work." This way, they can continue doing whatever they want, and there is no real opposition to their plans, because anyone who offers a decent solution is a "radical."

     So there you have it, the six main reasons why I'm going to vote Sarvis instead of Warner or Gillespie. I invite anyone to explain why Warner's or Gillespie's ideas on any of these six issues are better than Sarvis's. Usually, I don't get any alternate explanations, only that Sarvis's ideas "are too radical and won't work." Like the Democrats and Republicans' ideas are working?! I mean c'mon. Do you want a continuation of the status quo? It sucks! I'm open to change my mind on these issues if someone can convince me of a better plan, but so far, no one has been able to do so.
                     

   

 
    

Radical Feminists are attacking every aspect of white male culture

     Every week or so I see a new news article or blog, or something on the Internet, in which thoroughly pissed off women, claiming that they are feminists, are attacking something that white people, usually males, do. They are attacking a certain action because they view it to be "racist," or "misogynistic." They conclude that in order for white people to not be racist, they have to stop doing this certain action, or at least, do it differently.
     The problem is that these feminists or "social justice bloggers," (which basically means complaining and bitching about some mystical problem that white men make, and the bloggers write these posts while sipping a $6 coffee while in bed in their mansion, or in college, paid by someone else, usuallly *gasp* a male), have gone overboard. They've gone completely apeshit. They're now labeling dozens and dozens of cultural activities that white people, and everyone for that matter, do as racist or sexist. It seems they don't want white people doing anything except to be submissive and not challenge the feminists and people of color on anything that they do.
      White people don't deserve a voice, apparently. We don't deserve to have an opinion on things. We don't deserve to be able to create things of our imagination as we would like to, like books, movies, T.V. shows, etc.We can only do these things if the feminists and PoCs approve, and we can do them only how they say we can. Otherwise, we're racist and sexist.
      The social justice bloggers are not criticizing actions that are truly racist, like calling black people the N word, or seeing a woman in an office building and assuming she is the receptionist and not the CEO. Those actions should be condemned, and I'll be the first to stand with anyone else on calling people out on that.
     But instead, here are all of the actions that now are apparently racist and sexist, that us white people can't do anymore, or at least, we have to do differently to escape the wrath of feminists and social justice bloggers:

     1. Having any organization be majority white, and majority female. If you are a HR manager, you hire on the principle of hiring the best person for the job, regardless of sex, race, or religion, or by any other aspect other than how well a person can do this job. That is the rational, logical thing to do, because if you exclude people based on these aspects, you're potentially excluding the person who is best for the job.
     But the social justice bloggers are saying that's racist and/or sexist. If an organization is majority white or majority male, before they even can determine if the hiring decisions were done based on race or gender, they automatically and without question, condemn the organization as racist and/or sexist. For them, equal results is the answer, not an even playing field. They want it to be diverse, no matter of the qualification of any of the workers involved. I illustrated why this is a problem in my January 30th 2014 post: "People are obsessing over the wrong type of diversity": http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/01/people-are-obsessing-over-wrong-type-of.html
     Here is the part:
     "Let's say 2 grocery stores wants to hire 6 cashiers. 10 people apply to it, and the business ranks them by how good cashiers they are. 1 being the best cashier out of the 10, and 10 being the worst. Next to each number is the race of the person. For the simplicity of the argument, out of the 10 people, all of them are either Black, White, or Hispanic.
     1. Black
     2. White
     3. Hispanic
     4. White
     5. White
     6. White
     7. Black
     8. White
     9. Hispanic
     10. White

      Grocery store #1 has been brainwashed by liberal media. They think having a diverse staff is more important than being a good cashier. So they hire 2 people of every race, being "fair." So they hire numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9.
     Grocery store #2 respects all races, and doesn't give a flying shit what race you are. They want good cashiers, so they do the logical thing and hire numbers 1-6.
      Now compare the two stores. Grocery store #1 skipped persons 5 and 6, even though they were better cashiers than 7 and 9. They passed up better applicants to be more diverse. So they end up with a worse workforce vs grocery store #2.
     Worse workforce=less work=less products/services= crappier products/services=worse company."
     So this is what the social justice bullshitters want companies to do, and with Affirmative Action, they already are. They want companies to sacrifice getting the best employee in the name of diversity. But they only hold that white people do this. Every other race is exempt from having to have a diverse workforce. For example, there are many organizations and companies throughout the U.S., that, for various reasons, have a majority black or Hispanic workforce. Reasons could be because the organization has a cultural mission that pertains to a certain culture, or because of demographics. These organizations are not racist even though they have a majority workforce of one race, according to the feminists and social justice bloggers. But if an organization is majority white, then obviously it is racist, and must hire minorities to not be considered racist.

     2. Make a movie or a T.V. show with majority white actors/actresses or characters. Social justice bloggers complained that the Disney movie Frozen was "racist" because all of the characters in the movie are white: http://www.reflector-online.com/opinion/article_b54cd090-a319-11e3-89e8-0017a43b2370.html
     That's right, a movie that is set in medieval Scandinavia is racist for having all white characters. No matter that medieval Scandinavia had little to no minorities in many places, and certainly not amongst the ruling classes. So what does Disney get for making this movie realistic in this regard? Oh, it's obviously racist. The social justice bloggers think they have the right to tell Disney directors what they can't and cannot do in their own creative productions. The main point of this is: Random people, who are not in the Disney company at all, have no right to tell Disney directors what they can or cannot do when creating a work of their own imagination.
     If I were a Disney director, here is how I would respond: "This is my money, my time, and my effort that I put into this movie. This movie is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. It is a free country. I have the right to do this. I don't tell you what you cannot and can write about. I do not tell you how and how you cannot write. Leave me alone, and I'll continue to leave you alone."
     If you want to see a movie with the majority of characters being from minority races, then go ahead and make one yourself. Odds are, you can't do that, so you can support directors that make movies like that. You can exercise consumer choice, and go see movies that you support and like their aspects. But don't go around telling people how and how they can't make their own movies. That's fascist, that's being a tyrant, that's being a whiny sissy brat. So now, according to the social justice blogger Nazis, white people can only make movies if 1. The majority of their staff is non-white, and 2. If the majority of the characters in the movie are non-white.
     They don't hold this standard to any other ethnic group, only whites. Did any of them call Aladdin racist because every single character in that movie was Arab? No, of course not, because it makes sense to have Arabs in that movie, because it takes place in the Middle East in medieval times. But as soon as Disney does the same thing with another movie, they're racist.
      Do the social justice bloggers apply this ridiculous rule to movies coming from, let's say, Africa? Do they see a film out of Liberia, for example, and say "Oh this movie is racist because all of the actors/actresses are black?" Of course they fucking don't, because that would be fucking ridiculous.
     Not only does this apply to movies, but any other form of entertainment and creative productions, such as books or T.V. shows: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/25/minorities-in-movies-and-television. You wanna write a book with the majority of characters being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show with the majority of actors/actresses being white? Oh, you're racist. You wanna make a T.V. show that has majority black characters? Oh, you're not racist at all, you're a good white person, we don't have a problem with you!

     3. Stand up for people/issues that don't pertain to you. This only applies to white males. A white female social justice blogger can write all she wants about defending minorities and people of faiths that she is not a part of. She is commended for doing so, as she should be. Anyone, regardless of race or creed, when they stand up for someone else, should be commended. But the social justice bloggers don't want white males, particularly rich white males or male celebrities, to do so. Doing so would be exploiting their "privilege," and therefore, they should just sit down, shut up, and let the wonderful liberal female social justice bloggers and minorities do all the defending.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/08/afflect-dicaprio-white-male-celebrity-activist
     This defies all logic. One would think that the social justice bloggers would love white males defending other people. After all, that means they aren't racist. But no. We aren't allowed to do that either. I guess that makes me a "privileged white male" because I've defended minorities on this blog before. But yet they still condemn us if we don't stand up for other people. So we're racist no matter what we do. It's like they're assuming all white males are racist and sexist no matter what we do to prove the contrary.  

     4. Make video games with majority male or majority female characters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11087308/Women-strike-back-in-the-video-games-sex-war.html#comment-1584308521
     That's right, the feminists and social justice fascists are even stooping down to the lowest of the low to attack white males in their leisure and art activities, (yes, video games are a work of art, at least...the good ones are). The rules of #2 also pertain to video games as well. So if a white person makes a video game with majority white characters, then he's racist. If he makes a video game with little to no female roles, then he's obviously sexist.
     If I was a game developer, I'd reply "It's my money and my time I've invested into making this game. This game is a product of my imagination and creativity, and I can make it however I want. I don't tell you what you can and cannot write about. I do not tell you how and how you can't write." If a feminist or social justice blogger doesn't agree with the morales and values a game puts out, don't buy it. Don't play it. If she wants a game where she can play as a female, then make a game like so, or at least support game developers that do so. But don't go around saying "Oh this video game is sexist because you can't play as a female." Half of gamers may be female but the majority of game developers, you know, the ones who actually make the games, are male, and are free to make them however they want to.

     5. Making any type of media, be it movie, show, or book, that has a minority as the villain. That's right, we're no longer allowed to show that there are good and bad people of every race, because that would be racist. We have to show minorities, and women, in a positive role 100% of the time. 

      http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/01/arts/minority-villains-are-touchy-network-topics.html

     So if you want to be certain that your media is not labeled racist, better make a white guy the bad guy. After all, white men are the only bigoted group around here, (as so the social justice bloggers say). Now, if a piece of media had a minority as the villain, and the reason why he was the villain was because of his race, then THAT would be racist. But if there is a villain, who just so happens to be a minority, that is not racist. But the social justice bloggers are saying it is. http://www.racebending.com/v4/blog/olympus-fallen-white-nativism/
      The above blog link is so, so wrong. The movies "Olympus has Fallen" and "Red Dawn" is not saying that, because the villains are Asian, that makes them non-American. The movie does not say nor hint anything remotely at all. I have no idea where the blog writer is getting this idea from. Oh wait, yes I do, out of her own asshole. It's complete fucking bullshit. In "Olympus has Fallen," the reason why the villain is not American is not because he is Asian, but because the character, the villain, is a North Korean Spy. You can be Korean and be an American, but you can't be a Korean who only has North Korean citizenship and be a North Korean spy. That's not racist, it's just his character. Same thing with "Red Dawn." The villain's ethnicity is not what makes him non-American, it's the fact that his character does not have American citizenship: he is a North Korean military officer with North Korean citizenship only. Duh. Fucking duh.
     So villains can no longer be women or minorities, because that would be racist or sexist.

     6. (Updated 2/2/2015)
     Apparently there's something ELSE us racist white people can't do anymore. We can't nominate people for Academy Awards solely based on their talent and the movie they were in. No, now we got to give a certain amount of nominations to minorities, otherwise, we're racist.
     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-b-wilkinson/oscars-2015-so-hollywood-_b_6550568.html
     The author is bitching that no actor or actress in "Selma" got an Academy Award nomination. Not satisfied that the film itself got a nomination, no, that's not enough to satisfy the social justice bloggers who demand that every single damn thing in existence follow their specific rules in regards to race and sex. The author loved the actors and actresses in this movie, fine, that's her opinion. But she's so intolerant that she can't possibly comprehend how anyone could not love them as much as she does. If they don't like them enough to give it a nomination, then they must be racist!
      This is another example of an extremist racist liberal who wants everyone to have the exact same opinion on everything that she does. So now we have to take into account the ethnicity of people getting nominated for Academy Awards, making sure that every ethnicity is accounted for, otherwise, we're racist. No longer is the Academy Awards about the honest opinions that the people have for movies, no, now good actors and actresses will be ignored for others who may/may not be as good, but for their race.
     I don't even like the Academy Awards. I think they're a bunch of rich snobs giving awards to God awful movies while ignoring really good movies. But just because I disagree with them doesn't mean that I don't think they don't have the right to voice their opinion. See, that's the difference between me and the radical liberals. If someone says something I don't agree with, I say "Okay, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with your right to say it. As long as its not infringing on someone's human rights, then I don't care what you say." A radical liberal would say "Oh, you don't agree with me on mundane and unimportant issues, (as such the Academy Awards,)? Well, I'm just going to do everything in my legal power, use the media, etc, to make it impossible for everyone to have any other opinion other than my own!"

 

     In conclusion, these points may not seem as significant by themselves. One of these in isolation is not limiting one's creative practices or hiring practices that much. But combined together, they reveal the feminist and social justice blogger's world view: They don't want white males, particularly masculine white males, to do able to do anything. We can't hire employees how we see fit. We can't produce any work of culture, unless it meets their stringent rules that they feel that they are able to shove down on us. In essence, they want us to sit down, don't move, and shut up when it comes to doing things our way, which ironically, is the exact same thing they accuse masculine white males of doing to everyone else. I'm an author, yet to be published. I'll be damned if someone tells me I can't write my book the way I want to. My first book, the majority of the characters are Arab, and the main character is a woman: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/04/an-excerpt-from-my-book-battalions-of.html. But my second book, the book I'm writing right now, the main characters are white. Does that make me a racist for doing so?
     News flash, you stupid social justice blogger brats: People tend to produce works of art and culture about the culture they're a part of. It isn't racist or sexist to do so. Africans tend to write books and make movies about Africans. Asians tend to make T.V. shows about Asians. Are they racist for doing so? Of course not. White people are no different. Are there some racist white people? Of course, there's racist white people out there in the world. There are racists of every race out there in the world. We shouldn't have a set of standards for whites to follow, and then a set of standards that everyone else follows. Cuz you know why? Because that's racist and bigoted, the very crimes that social justice bloggers claim to be fighting, when in fact, they're perpetuating.